ESA (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) as GUR

Layout of the golf course and good starters make a huge difference. The fastest course that I play has a lot of areas marked as 'environmentally sensitive'. There's a free drop ( always in the thick rough ) but you can't enter those areas, even if you can see your ball. Really speeds up the game when there's no penalty and you can't spend ages looking. I've never been waiting on that course. The starters there seem to have a lot of empowerment as well when it comes to letting people off early, or moving the order of groups depending on who's ready to go.

b. Environmentally-Sensitive Areas

If an appropriate authority (i.e., a Government Agency or the like) prohibits entry into and/or play from an area on or adjoining the course for environmental reasons, the Committee should make a Local Rule clarifying the relief procedure.

The Committee has some discretion in terms of whether the area is defined as ground under repair, a water hazard orout of bounds. However, it may not simply define the area to be a water hazard if it does not meet the Definition of a “Water Hazard” and it should attempt to preserve the character of the hole.

The following Local Rule is recommended:

“I. Definition

An environmentally-sensitive area (ESA) is an area so declared by an appropriate authority, entry into and/or play from which is prohibited for environmental reasons. These areas may be defined as ground under repair, a water hazard, a lateral water hazard or out of bounds at the discretion of the Committee, provided that in the case of an ESA that has been defined as a water hazard or a lateral water hazard, the area is, by definition, a water hazard.

Note: The Committee may not declare an area to be environmentally-sensitive.

There's a free drop ( always in the thick rough ) but you can't enter those areas, even if you can see your ball. Really speeds up the game when there's no penalty and you can't spend ages looking.

Are these designated as environmentally sensitive by some government agency or is it just the course making their own designation?  If the latter then you should be aware that the course is not properly marked under USGA rules.

From Appendix I of the Rules:

Note the last item - the Committee may not make the designation.  IF an appropriate authority makes the designation THEN the Committee decides how to handle it.  But the Committee cannot make the designation just to speed play or circumvent the OB or Lost Ball rules.

Government designated, I'm pretty sure. Will check again next time I'm out. They have list of the protected species, etc, posted.

The local rule is no penalty plus complete relief. Obviously this is a local rule, and a sensible one since it keeps pace of play moving and doesn't frustrate the golfers ( there's a fair amount of these areas, but it's not like the course doesn't have hazards as well ).

Since it is government designated, the local rule seems completely legal according to what's been posted? And as long as this is taken into account in the course rating, it won't affect your handicap ( I would think ).

Coyote Creek in San Jose, if anyone knows it better than I do. The Tournament course has a ton of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by turtleback

Are these designated as environmentally sensitive by some government agency or is it just the course making their own designation?  If the latter then you should be aware that the course is not properly marked under USGA rules.

From Appendix I of the Rules:

Note the last item - the Committee may not make the designation.  IF an appropriate authority makes the designation THEN the Committee decides how to handle it.  But the Committee cannot make the designation just to speed play or circumvent the OB or Lost Ball rules.

Hmmm. I suppose that since "Ground under repair" is listed among the options I was completely wrong and there is the possibility of a free drop if they choose that option.

Government designated, I'm pretty sure. Will check again next time I'm out. They have list of the protected species, etc, posted.

The local rule is no penalty plus complete relief. Obviously this is a local rule, and a sensible one since it keeps pace of play moving and doesn't frustrate the golfers ( there's a fair amount of these areas, but it's not like the course doesn't have hazards as well ).

Since it is government designated, the local rule seems completely legal according to what's been posted? And as long as this is taken into account in the course rating, it won't affect your handicap ( I would think ).

Coyote Creek in San Jose, if anyone knows it better than I do. The Tournament course has a ton of it.

Government designated, I'm pretty sure. Will check again next time I'm out. They have list of the protected species, etc, posted.

The local rule is no penalty plus complete relief. Obviously this is a local rule, and a sensible one since it keeps pace of play moving and doesn't frustrate the golfers ( there's a fair amount of these areas, but it's not like the course doesn't have hazards as well ).

Since it is government designated, the local rule seems completely legal according to what's been posted? And as long as this is taken into account in the course rating, it won't affect your handicap ( I would think ).

Coyote Creek in San Jose, if anyone knows it better than I do. The Tournament course has a ton of it.

They may call it a "local rule" but it isn't an authorized one.  Playing by such a rule would invalidate any round for handicap recording.  Allowed local rules are authorized by the USGA and are found in Appendix I of the Rules of Golf.  To modify or suspend a rule of golf like your course does is expressly forbidden.

Ground under repair designation is not intended to be a catch-all for modifying the rules.  GUR must be some sort of abnormal ground condition.  If the area in question is always in that condition then it is NOT GUR.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

They may call it a "local rule" but it isn't an authorized one.  Playing by such a rule would invalidate any round for handicap recording.  Allowed local rules are authorized by the USGA and are found in Appendix I of the Rules of Golf.  To modify or suspend a rule of golf like your course does is expressly forbidden.

Ground under repair designation is not intended to be a catch-all for modifying the rules.  GUR must be some sort of abnormal ground condition.  If the area in question is always in that condition then it is NOT GUR.

Why do you say that?  If the areas are designated as environmentally sensitive areas by some appropriate government authority then the Committee is authorized to adopt a local rule and they have the choice of treating these areas as OB or as GUR or, if appropriate, as hazards.  No?

I'm just using the wording in the rules.  Ground under repair is part of Rule 25, which is Abnormal Ground Conditions, Embedded Ball, and Wrong Putting Green.  GUR designation was never intended to be used as a safety net just to keep players happy and penalty free.  It is intended to be used for temporary conditions which would adversely affect normal play.  If the area in question is in its normal state and is truly environmentally sensitive so that play must be prohibited, then it should be marked OB, or as a water hazard if it fits the definition of water hazard.  I assure you that the ruling bodies frown on courses taking the lazy way out, just like those which use lateral hazards where there is nothing that fits the definition.  You can bet that if the USGA sponsored a competition on that course that those areas would not be GUR.

Why not just post a sign on the tee that says, "The left side of the hole is environmentally sensitive and out of bounds.  If you hit your ball in that direction, play a provisional ball before leaving the tee."  Pace of play problem solved without having to ignore or modify the rules.  And they just might have educated a few players on the benefits of the provisional ball rule.

There are ways to accomplish what they want without playing fast and loose with the rules.

“I. Definition

An environmentally-sensitive area (ESA) is an area so declared by an appropriate authority, entry into and/or play from which is prohibited for environmental reasons. These areas may be defined as ground under repair, a water hazard, a lateral water hazard or out of bounds at the discretion of the Committee, provided that in the case of an ESA that has been defined as a water hazard or a lateral water hazard, the area is, by definition, a water hazard.

Note: The Committee may not declare an area to be environmentally-sensitive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

I'm just using the wording in the rules.  Ground under repair is part of Rule 25, which is Abnormal Ground Conditions, Embedded Ball, and Wrong Putting Green.  GUR designation was never intended to be used as a safety net just to keep players happy and penalty free.  It is intended to be used for temporary conditions which would adversely affect normal play.  If the area in question is in its normal state and is truly environmentally sensitive so that play must be prohibited, then it should be marked OB, or as a water hazard if it fits the definition of water hazard.  I assure you that the ruling bodies frown on courses taking the lazy way out, just like those which use lateral hazards where there is nothing that fits the definition.  You can bet that if the USGA sponsored a competition on that course that those areas would not be GUR.

Why not just post a sign on the tee that says, "The left side of the hole is environmentally sensitive and out of bounds.  If you hit your ball in that direction, play a provisional ball before leaving the tee."  Pace of play problem solved without having to ignore or modify the rules.  And they just might have educated a few players on the benefits of the provisional ball rule.

There are ways to accomplish what they want without playing fast and loose with the rules.

The local rule in Appendix I says (my emphasis added):

Quote:

“I. Definition

An environmentally-sensitive area (ESA) is an area so declared by an appropriate authority, entry into and/or play from which is prohibited for environmental reasons. These areas may be defined as ground under repair, a water hazard, a lateral water hazard or out of bounds at the discretion of the Committee, provided that in the case of an ESA that has been defined as a water hazard or a lateral water hazard, the area is, by definition, a water hazard.

Note: The Committee may not declare an area to be environmentally-sensitive.

So if they designate the ESA as GUR the Committee is completely within its discretion under the local rule and they are NOT playing fast and loose with the rules, they are using an fully authorized local rule and the discretion given to them under the local rule.  Why do you think there is anything wrong with the Committee designating it as GUR when that is explicitly allowed by the local rule?  Why is it the lazy way out to adopt a USGA authorized local rule and legitimately exercise one of the options thereunder?

It has nothing to do with Rule 25 as far as I can see, which is why it is in a local rule not under rule 25.  Now maybe the USGA would not choose to use the GUR designation in one of their competitions, but that is because they, as the committee for the competition, chose not to exercise the discretion given to them under the local rule.

But I think you may be confusing the ESA situation, where it has been deemed an ESA by a governmental agency, with the sloppy marking practice some courses have that DO end up with wrong and inappropriate use of a lateral hazard designation when the definition of a water hazard was not met, but this is a completely different case that is completely governed by the ESA local rule.

Sure the Committee could decide to treat it as OB, but the only restriction I can see is the one on water hazards.  Note that the local rule does NOT require that an ESA that the Committee designated as GUR must otherwise meet the GUR definition, as is the case with designating it as a water hazards.

I'm just using the wording in the rules.  Ground under repair is part of Rule 25, which is Abnormal Ground Conditions, Embedded Ball, and Wrong Putting Green.  GUR designation was never intended to be used as a safety net just to keep players happy and penalty free.  It is intended to be used for temporary conditions which would adversely affect normal play.  If the area in question is in its normal state and is truly environmentally sensitive so that play must be prohibited, then it should be marked OB, or as a water hazard if it fits the definition of water hazard.  I assure you that the ruling bodies frown on courses taking the lazy way out, just like those which use lateral hazards where there is nothing that fits the definition.  You can bet that if the USGA sponsored a competition on that course that those areas would not be GUR.

Why not just post a sign on the tee that says, "The left side of the hole is environmentally sensitive and out of bounds.  If you hit your ball in that direction, play a provisional ball before leaving the tee."  Pace of play problem solved without having to ignore or modify the rules.  And they just might have educated a few players on the benefits of the provisional ball rule.

There are ways to accomplish what they want without playing fast and loose with the rules.

Ground under repair always refers to Rule 25.  Always - for procedure and potential penalty for breaching.

This has come up in one of the USGA workshops I took and while not prohibited, it is not considered as a acceptable practice unless there are extenuating circumstances.  You can believe what you like, but any area so designated should still meet the definition.  This is why there are options.  Such an area can be designated as GUR on a temporary basis during abnormal conditions, but should be reclassified when those conditions no longer pertain.  That was straight from the instructor.

I have never come across such a situation so I can't speak from experience.  All of the ESA's I've ever dealt with were wetlands, and if they were part of the course they were marked as water hazards where play was prohibited - if off the course then OB where entry was prohibited.  I have also seen GUR where play was prohibited to protect new growth on the course, but always as a temporary condition.  Anytime there was a permanent or normal condition where play was not allowed, it was either an ESA water hazard or out of bounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Ground under repair always refers to Rule 25.  Always - for procedure and potential penalty for breaching.

This has come up in one of the USGA workshops I took and while not prohibited, it is not considered as a acceptable practice unless there are extenuating circumstances.  You can believe what you like, but any area so designated should still meet the definition.  This is why there are options.  Such an area can be designated as GUR on a temporary basis during abnormal conditions, but should be reclassified when those conditions no longer pertain.  That was straight from the instructor.

I have never come across such a situation so I can't speak from experience.  All of the ESA's I've ever dealt with were wetlands, and if they were part of the course they were marked as water hazards where play was prohibited - if off the course then OB where entry was prohibited.  I have also seen GUR where play was prohibited to protect new growth on the course, but always as a temporary condition.  Anytime there was a permanent or normal condition where play was not allowed, it was either an ESA water hazard or out of bounds.

Due respect but you are not at all addressing the clear language of the local rule and Appendix I.  There is nothing in that rule or anywhere else in the rules that I have seen that supports your position.  I do not see why the USGA would codify a local rule allowing something they consider as not an acceptable practice.

Also, why would they specify that the water hazard designation requires that the area otherwise satisfy the water hazard definition yet make no such stipulation for the GUR designation.

AS far as Rule 25, I agree that it will govern the relief procedures, but NOT definition, since the approved local rule overrides the definition with its allowed designation.

I will also point out that the USGA publication on holding competitions also addresses the ESA issue and again says nothing supporting your view of the GUR designation.  It seems to me that if the GUR designation was not considered an acceptable practice they might have mentioned it somewhere?  Particularly since they explicitly give it as an option without placing any specific criteria or restrictions bearing on their exercise of discretion.

The local rule in Appendix I says (my emphasis added):

“I. Definition

An environmentally-sensitive area (ESA) is an area so declared by an appropriate authority, entry into and/or play from which is prohibited for environmental reasons. These areas may be defined as ground under repair, a water hazard, a lateral water hazard or out of bounds at the discretion of the Committee, provided that in the case of an ESA that has been defined as a water hazard or a lateral water hazard, the area is, by definition, a water hazard.

Note: The Committee may not declare an area to be environmentally-sensitive.

So if they designate the ESA as GUR the Committee is completely within its discretion under the local rule and they are NOT playing fast and loose with the rules, they are using an fully authorized local rule and the discretion given to them under the local rule.  Why do you think there is anything wrong with the Committee designating it as GUR when that is explicitly allowed by the local rule?  Why is it the lazy way out to adopt a USGA authorized local rule and legitimately exercise one of the options thereunder?

It has nothing to do with Rule 25 as far as I can see, which is why it is in a local rule not under rule 25.  Now maybe the USGA would not choose to use the GUR designation in one of their competitions, but that is because they, as the committee for the competition, chose not to exercise the discretion given to them under the local rule.

But I think you may be confusing the ESA situation, where it has been deemed an ESA by a governmental agency, with the sloppy marking practice some courses have that DO end up with wrong and inappropriate use of a lateral hazard designation when the definition of a water hazard was not met, but this is a completely different case that is completely governed by the ESA local rule.

Sure the Committee could decide to treat it as OB, but the only restriction I can see is the one on water hazards.  Note that the local rule does NOT require that an ESA that the Committee designated as GUR must otherwise meet the GUR definition, as is the case with designating it as a water hazards.

Ground under repair always refers to Rule 25.  Always - for procedure and potential penalty for breaching.

This has come up in one of the USGA workshops I took and while not prohibited, it is not considered as a acceptable practice unless there are extenuating circumstances.  You can believe what you like, but any area so designated should still meet the definition.  This is why there are options.  Such an area can be designated as GUR on a temporary basis during abnormal conditions, but should be reclassified when those conditions no longer pertain.  That was straight from the instructor.

I have never come across such a situation so I can't speak from experience.  All of the ESA's I've ever dealt with were wetlands, and if they were part of the course they were marked as water hazards where play was prohibited - if off the course then OB where entry was prohibited.  I have also seen GUR where play was prohibited to protect new growth on the course, but always as a temporary condition.  Anytime there was a permanent or normal condition where play was not allowed, it was either an ESA water hazard or out of bounds.

Due respect but you are not at all addressing the clear language of the local rule and Appendix I.  There is nothing in that rule or anywhere else in the rules that I have seen that supports your position.  I do not see why the USGA would codify a local rule allowing something they consider as not an acceptable practice.

Also, why would they specify that the water hazard designation requires that the area otherwise satisfy the water hazard definition yet make no such stipulation for the GUR designation.

AS far as Rule 25, I agree that it will govern the relief procedures, but NOT definition, since the approved local rule overrides the definition with its allowed designation.

I will also point out that the USGA publication on holding competitions also addresses the ESA issue and again says nothing supporting your view of the GUR designation.  It seems to me that if the GUR designation was not considered an acceptable practice they might have mentioned it somewhere?  Particularly since they explicitly give it as an option without placing any specific criteria or restrictions bearing on their exercise of discretion.

Maybe because for most people the phrase "ground under repair" is self explanatory?

Ground Under Repair

“Ground under repair” includes any part of the course so marked by order of the Committee (see Definition of “Ground Under Repair”). If such an area has been marked it should be identified in the Local Rules. However, as it is hoped that such marking will be of a temporary nature, no specific references should be included on a Club’s score card but rather the Local Rule should be posted on a notice board. When a Local Rules card is produced specifically for a Championship, any areas of “ground under repair” should be referenced, for example:

“Ground Under Repair (Rule 25-1)

The re-turfed area to the left of the 8th hole defined by blue stakes is ground under repair and Rule 25-1b applies.”

Alternatively, identification of ground under repair can be more general, for example:

“Ground Under Repair (Rule 25-1)

All areas encircled by white lines are ground under repair.”

Where the Committee wishes to protect an area completely by not allowing any play whatsoever, it may declare the area to be “ground under repair; play prohibited”. Consequently, a player must take relief if he has interference from the condition. An example of the recommended wording for such a Local Rule is:

“Ground Under Repair; Play Prohibited

The turf nursery to the right of the 3rd hole defined by blue stakes is ground under repair from which play is prohibited. If a player’s ball lies in this area, or if this area interferes with the player’s stance or the area of his intended swing, the player must take relief under Rule 25-1.

PENALTY FOR BREACH OF LOCAL RULE:

Match play – Loss of hole; Stroke play – Two strokes.”

Prior to prohibiting play from an area of ground under repair, it is important that the Committee assess the relief that will be available to the player. It would be inequitable to make a player take relief from an area that would normally be reasonable for play when the player’s nearest point of relief is in bushes, trees or some other unplayable position.

When ground under repair is adjacent to an artificially-surfaced road or path (an obstruction), sometimes a player, after obtaining relief from one condition, has interference from the condition. Thus, another drop under another Rule results. This is cumbersome and could lead to complications (see Decision 1-4/8). Accordingly, it is suggested that the ground under repair is tied into the road or path with a white line and the following Local Rule adopted:

“Immovable Obstructions (Rule 24-2) White-lined areas adjoining any areas defined as immovable obstructions are to be regarded as part of the obstruction and not ground under repair. ”

From the R&A; guidelines for running a competition: Note the part that I put in bold and red font.  It would seem that the R&A; tends to agree with what I've been told by the USGA in regards to ground under repair.